Smokers banned from using lifts

stix62

littleboo wrote: »

Well in the eyes of the law it does have to be protected,otherwise we'd have alcoholics claiming discrimination because booze wasn't allowed in the workplace, or people claiming discrimination because the dress code stifles their flamboyant sense of style...

The list of protected characteristics is not exclusive to discrimination. You could be discriminated against for being, or not, in a trade union for example, or being a fixed term or part time worker.

It IS discrimination because one group of people is being treated unfairly compared to another.

We are not talking about smokers smoking IN the workplace, the law sorted that one out.
If you're an alcoholic who turns up for work sober and capable of doing the job that's fine in my books. If on the other hand you turn up drunk that's a health and safety issue and any employer would be fully justified in sending you home.

american_dreamer

Thanks all! Yes, stopping is a solution and believe me its a goal!


The general consensus is that the smokers among us will wait and see how they are going to try to enforce it.


Just to reply to some comments, my smoke breaks are not in a confined space and non-smokers have commented that they never smell smoke off me (menthols?). I voluntarily (and through no prompting) come in earlier or leave later than my colleagues to cover any additional 'break' time I have (2 x 5mins), even though I have colleagues who take more breaks making tea! E-cigs are banned too

TBagpuss

It's a curious one. I suspect that either it is an attempt to stop people from taking fag breaks (maybe there are some who are percieved to be absuing this) OR there is someone senior who really, really hates being in a confined space with the smell of cigarette smoke.

I have a certain amount of sympathy for either position - you may be different, but in my experience, most smokers tend to take fag breaks in addition to having the same tea and comfort breaks as everyone else. Added to which, I am asthmatic and while I don't (mercifully) suffer from life-threatening attacks I do find being in a confined space with someone who smells of smoke will trigger wheeziness and discomfort, as well as being unpleasant because it is (to a non-smoker) a nasty small.

That said, I think it would be difficult to police, and it might have been more sensible for the employers to make it clearer why they are introducing the rule. On the face of it, it seems likely to lead to lower productivity as people will be away from their desks for longer, and depending on the level of fitness of the smokers concerned, having to walk up 5 flights of stairs might lead to BO issues as bad as the smoke smell (of course, if the person requiring the rule shares the lift but not the office space, they may not care!)

Bantex_2

Flatulence can be more fun.
Nobody says a word.

brightonman123

how can they prove this?


giving up is better all round, anyway. smoking, and using the lift.

Undervalued

ste_wilko wrote: »

You employer cannot deny you use of facilities based on your lifestyle, unless allowing you to use those facilities would put you or others at risk

Nonsense, they most certainly can!

The only thing they can't do is to discriminate for any of the handful of reasons prohibited by law.

Restricting the use of the lift could obviously be discriminatory against somebody with a physical disability but providing they make a "reasonable adjustment" that addresses this then there are no other issues.

topdaddy_2

Whats the punishment for breaking these rules?

Mojisola

I don't like the smell of cigarettes but I'd rather share a lift with a smoker than someone wearing an over-powering perfume.